The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why oh why do I occasionally watch a moviebob video anymore? Is it some deranged belief that he'll actually have reasonable points? People compare Anita to Jack Thompson because their arc is near IDENTICAL, the only difference really being Anita's gender. They're both attention seeking, self promoters, riding a wave, as he put it, to get themselves out there. Anita's even started blaming mysogeony for school shootings now. People don't bring Jack up because he's some kind of mythical figure like Candlejack or something, they bring...
Well, I'm gonna need more rope. What Uratoh meant to say, was that people bring Thompson up because there are some distinct parallels between his 'games cause violence' rhetoric, right down to the death threats he received, and the 'games cause mysogeony' rhetoric Anita and her ilk tend to spout. Now if you'll excuse me, someone just said my name on tumblr.
Well, I'm gonna need more rope. What Uratoh meant to say, was that people bring Thompson up because there are some distinct parallels between his 'games cause violence' rhetoric, right down to the death threats he received, and the 'games cause mysogeony' rhetoric Anita and her ilk tend to spout. Now if you'll excuse me, someone just said my name on tumblr.
Jack Thompson, Jack Thompson, Jack Thompson! Did it work? I don't see him anywhere.
Although nice use of the clips from the Bogeyman episodes of The Real Ghostbusters, especially after that HD column listing their best episodes. SO Jack is one of those self-described "crusaders" blaming video games for ALL the evils in the modern world but who has a Castlevania's amount of skeletons in their closet. Doesn't sound all that different from Sarkisian.
Who here watched that episode of The Colbert Report that had her on the show to talk about video games?
Although nice use of the clips from the Bogeyman episodes of The Real Ghostbusters, especially after that HD column listing their best episodes. SO Jack is one of those self-described "crusaders" blaming video games for ALL the evils in the modern world but who has a Castlevania's amount of skeletons in their closet. Doesn't sound all that different from Sarkisian.
Who here watched that episode of The Colbert Report that had her on the show to talk about video games?
That is a catchy number, isn't it? I like how they made it look like those old Schoolhouse Rock shorts.V4Viewtiful said:
I'm not sure I see the difference between the treatment of Sarkeesian and Thompson, to be honest. They've both recieved death threats in an inapropriate response to poorly made criticism, and both have had major push backs against them because of it.MarsAtlas said:
Would you kindly explain why you believe the gaming community's treatment of Sarkeesian is any different?
Well that is severely concerning. Isn't saying that he "had it coming" victim blaming?Uriel_Hayabusa said:
Sure they are. One is making the oh-so-controversial suggestion that media can shape how people think about things (if this isn't true, then a lot of people in the media are seriously wasting their time), and the other is claiming that games can take over people's minds and compel them to commit actual physical acts. It's essentially the difference between saying that a particular movie can change people's minds about homosexuality and saying that it will literally make people gay.faeshadow said:
Define "this context". Bob wasn't responding directly to any one conversation. A lot of people say a lot of things in a lot of places; it's entirely possible that he was addressing something completely different from what you've seen.Uriel_Hayabusa said:
Your angle would have made for a more interesting video, though. Not gonna deny that.
Well the comparison is tired if nothing else. There are plenty of other self righteous moral guardians out there we can make comparisons to without quite the personal baggage:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralGuardians
Check the section on real life. I like reminding people that things like the Comics Code Authority started not in congress, but with a book of criticisms that were cherry picked, out of context, sometimes lies, and often projections of Wertham's own fears. Moral Crusaders are hardly new, and I don't think I've ever seen one as intelligent even when much younger as I watch outrage over Murphey Brown's single parenthood, the violence in power rangers, or the lesbian wedding on Friends. This show promotes violence, that book attacks religion, this music is satanic hell before Anita became a thing we were all united at the joke that was One Million Moms and their upset that video games could have gay characters (guess a group that thought a skittles commercial could encourage bestiality aren't all that stable.)
So Anita's coming up with feminist criticism, but that alone isn't something I give credence to any more than I do criticisms based on religious grounds, or environmentalist ones, or political ones. Even if these critics are 100% right, so what. It isn't the media's job to self censor or even acknowledge every crackpot that comes up and says their values aren't being represented. Some may need more monetary stimulation, and others may just tell you to fuck off they're trying to make something that challenges your views because they don't agree with them.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/06/23/official-nintendo-magazine-uk-calls-senran-kagura-2-filth-xseed-producer-responds-in-kind/
Thompson is a recognizable name for a larger disease of people that take issue with anything not promoting the "right" values. His time has gone, but other are on the fight now, and until I get better indication otherwise, I include Anita in that group of people that have little to say but implications of how some piece of poorly written fiction either creates, promotes, or props up shitty behavior, at least until I see signs that her work isn't based on similar shitty logic and stereotyping the whole industry by its worst examples.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralGuardians
Check the section on real life. I like reminding people that things like the Comics Code Authority started not in congress, but with a book of criticisms that were cherry picked, out of context, sometimes lies, and often projections of Wertham's own fears. Moral Crusaders are hardly new, and I don't think I've ever seen one as intelligent even when much younger as I watch outrage over Murphey Brown's single parenthood, the violence in power rangers, or the lesbian wedding on Friends. This show promotes violence, that book attacks religion, this music is satanic hell before Anita became a thing we were all united at the joke that was One Million Moms and their upset that video games could have gay characters (guess a group that thought a skittles commercial could encourage bestiality aren't all that stable.)
So Anita's coming up with feminist criticism, but that alone isn't something I give credence to any more than I do criticisms based on religious grounds, or environmentalist ones, or political ones. Even if these critics are 100% right, so what. It isn't the media's job to self censor or even acknowledge every crackpot that comes up and says their values aren't being represented. Some may need more monetary stimulation, and others may just tell you to fuck off they're trying to make something that challenges your views because they don't agree with them.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/06/23/official-nintendo-magazine-uk-calls-senran-kagura-2-filth-xseed-producer-responds-in-kind/
Thompson is a recognizable name for a larger disease of people that take issue with anything not promoting the "right" values. His time has gone, but other are on the fight now, and until I get better indication otherwise, I include Anita in that group of people that have little to say but implications of how some piece of poorly written fiction either creates, promotes, or props up shitty behavior, at least until I see signs that her work isn't based on similar shitty logic and stereotyping the whole industry by its worst examples.
Wait when did Jack Thompson become relevant again?
I haven't heard his name in ... I don't know how many years, right up till I saw this video ...
I had almost completely forgotten he existed
I haven't heard his name in ... I don't know how many years, right up till I saw this video ...
I had almost completely forgotten he existed
I came here to listen to him rant about this. While I feel he was perhaps a little snide here, I agree with his overall point and am glad he made it.piscian said:
Though you did admit he can make and do whatever he wants here, so at least you gave him that.
Ugh, I thought something like this was coming when some GG people started comparing certain internet personalities to Jack Thompson. And seriously? I partly agree: It is a stupid comparison, those personalities are only partially comparable. Also nobody should be shouted down for their opinion.
However, when certain parts of gaming culture try to force their opinions down the throats of other parts these parts should not be surprised if they meet resistance. Ultimately Bob's video is nothing else and laced with shaming tactics.
And believe me, I say this as a neutral person in this whole clusterfuck. None of the sides is perfect and all of them have skeletons in their closet. Certain internet personalities posting either 8-tweet-long tirades certainly doesn't help the situation. It only adds more fuel to the fire when it could have been over after a week [http://gganalysis.blogspot.de/2014/10/gamer-gate-analysis.html].
However, when certain parts of gaming culture try to force their opinions down the throats of other parts these parts should not be surprised if they meet resistance. Ultimately Bob's video is nothing else and laced with shaming tactics.
And believe me, I say this as a neutral person in this whole clusterfuck. None of the sides is perfect and all of them have skeletons in their closet. Certain internet personalities posting either 8-tweet-long tirades certainly doesn't help the situation. It only adds more fuel to the fire when it could have been over after a week [http://gganalysis.blogspot.de/2014/10/gamer-gate-analysis.html].
Because find me at any point where Anita ever said that they cause sexism. I've seen plenty of times when she's said that just being a gamer doesn't mean your sexist.faeshadow said:
That's the reason why it's a silly comparison, because one said those things, and the other has been constantly assumed to have said those things.
Eh, sometimes he says something I agree with, sometimes he doesn't. I respect his opinion enough to listen to it and judge it on its' own merits, but I don't go out seeking it.Mythmaker said:
So in that case he's not overly important to me in the dialogue (Jimothy holds that place for me), but I wouldn't ever dismiss what he says, or what anyone else says, simply because they've said it.
So I'm less than 90 seconds in and she's already made two completely spurious points.webkilla said:
at 1:00 Sarkeesian believes Damsel In Distress "should be completely retired from use". Nope. Failure to understand the difference between saying "this trope is incredibly prevalent" and "this trope should never be used again".
And then a few seconds later, she completely misunderstands the nature of the trope she's discussing.
"A single act of misfortune upon a female character somehow ... invalidates any opportunity to be considered a hero".
Except that the definition of the Damsel in Distress trope is exactly that. If Mario turned up to rescue the princess, and found she'd already defeated Bowser, that would be a subversion of the trope. (See the first Monkey Island for a great example of a female character that didn't need rescuing). But he doesn't. The princess has no agency and never does anything other than get captured. She may as well be her crown.
She then goes on about how victimhood doesn't negate positive traits, etc. Except we don't see those traits. The princess gets captured and Mario saves her. That is the extent of her characterisation. There's nothing about her stoic resistance to Bowser.
So 2 minutes in, and this video is already a grasping attempt to put her reading of the characters onto a blank slate. I'm not botheresd watching the rest.
sigh.... there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to a humanities view of a culture.Uriel_Hayabusa said:
This isn't a scientific study its a humanities project learn the difference internet.
The problem is some people still remember Patricia Pulling who was part or the whole D&D causes suicide and is part of Satanic cult insanity of the 1980s. Unlike Jack Thompson people took Pulling seriously with cops and public officials actually listening to her.JoJo said:
Saying Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) has won the battle because the Supreme Court ruled games are protected under the 1st amendment is IMHO pathetical naive.
2013 saw at least two attempt to ban video games in some way:
Linda Stender a New Jersey assemblywoman in 2013 tried to get ban violent video games in public
Jim Matheson of Utah introduced a bill (Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, H.R. 287) very similar to the one the US Supreme Court struck down in 2011
Jack Thompson himself may be out of the picture but his views are still out there and there are people who don't give a fig WHAT the US Supreme Court ruled and might find enough people to believe them and pass some insane law.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - supposedly Thomas Jefferson
Great use of quotes and providing evidence for your claim. As Ghandi stated, "The British have imperialistic power of India... blah blah blah".Mikeyfell said:
She never states anything like that [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RPr9DwMA&list=UU7Edgk9RxP7Fm7vjQ1d-cDA], nor mentions anything about "acceptability" (15:15 of the video). She only notes that men and women are framed in different ways during these scenarios, with women often being passive victims while men are shown to at the very least be able to defend themselves with a depiction of agency in the event.
...sexism is based on gender and how it affects us...
No, it doesn't, because she never said that. I rewatched both of her most recent videos and there is nothing like that stated.
Again, great job providing your evidence.
.....wtf??? you are actually trying to claim that this ad right here wasn't mean to be sexulalized? A woman naked in a bath tub isn't sexual? remove the toaster and guess what its a Maxim cover photo.The_Kodu said:
but lets assume you are right saying 1 thing that is wrong doesn't invalidate anything else she has said.
Bravo Mr. Chipman. I fully support all you said in this episode. Though I get the feeling that now you've kicked the hornet's nest, we're gonna have a big backlash. Scratch that, not kicked the hornet's nest. More like ripped it into pieces, poured sulphuric acid over the pieces and then took a piss on it.
I find this sort of thing to be fascinating. There's a certain mindset that leads to one boiling a movement down to a series of derogatory statements and that mindset is one I've never been able to wrap my head around. I find it particularly interesting that you refer to them as "babies", since your message conveys the idea that you, yourself are engaging in the most juvenile behavior imaginable. I also find it extraordinary that you seem to think everyone who is pro GG is a male or white. I don't imagine you actually believe that though; I am thinking it's just easier to ignore the actual makeup of the group so you can engage in a bit of slamming white males.delroland said:
I'm not being devious when I say it is fascinating though; I really do find it interesting how people can set their minds this way. The harshness of my criticism is because I also find it deplorable. And surely it doesn't matter, but I am not pro GG myself. I simply find that your description of that movement to be so wacky that it makes a caricature of you more than them.
YES, THIS. I'm so tired of people linking to KiteTails and her grasping at straws. I'm willing to guess that the main reason she's so popular is because the anti-Anita crowd thinks that having a woman agree with their opinion on gender politics somehow validates them.SnowWookie said:
A naked woman in a bathtub isn't necessarily sexualized; it depends on the context. If I were to tell you that I made a painting of a bunny with her offspring out in a lush green field on a bright sunny day, you might think this image is "cute." If I then show you the image and it turns out I missed explaining a few details, such as the fact that the rabbits are all dead from an exploded bomb which has scattered their bodies around, I don't imagine your reaction would still be "cute!" So no, a woman in a bathtub does not automatically denote sexualization.bobdole1979 said:.....wtf??? you are actually trying to claim that this ad right here wasn't mean to be sexulalized? A woman naked in a bath tub isn't sexual?The_Kodu said:
but lets assume you are right saying 1 thing that is wrong doesn't invalidate anything else she has said.
As for the specific image you posted, some might find it sexual in nature. Out of curiosity, if the woman in the image were obese, would you still consider it sexualized? Art's funny that way; we imprint our own thoughts, feelings and bias on it. I see nothing sexual about that image, even if it is centered on a lovely, naked woman. For me, the fact that she's dead takes any semblance of sexuality out of it. For others, they might find the image very sexual. Neither me nor that hypothetical person are "right" though.